Year: 2008

“Those Who Do Not Learn from the Past …”

Eduflack Gates Foundation, higher ed, NAEP, PR, STEM

We’ve all heard George Santayana’s famous quote (often attributed to others), that “those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.”  It is a poignant statement on the importance of understanding what has happened in the past, so we can learn and grow from it.

Personally, Eduflack prefers the words of baseball philosopher king Yogi Berra, who eloquently said that if we don’t know where we are going, we will never know if we get there.  Both are applicable to life, and both are certainly applicable to education reform.  In an our current era of “change,” we are all looking to do something different with the schools.  But for those who have been around the block a time or two, they are seeing reforms that are simply retreads of ideas past.  We put a new wrapping on them or give them a new name, but they are the same failed ideas, with no indication that we have learned from their participation in that first rodeo.
What does it all mean?  For the most part, it demonstrates that we have little sense for our current standing or what it has taken to get us there.  We still believe we have the best higher education system in the world, even though our college graduation rate has slipped from first place to 15th in 10 years.  We still believe our K-12 system has no match, even as schools in India and China manage to turn out more and more students to take our jobs.  And we still embrace an educational model that was developed nearly a century ago, a model built on the notion that 1/3 in college, 1/3 high school grad, and 1/3 dropout is acceptable, and the three Rs remain the king.
Put simply, we are getting by on our reputations, not on our current actions.  We often hear carbuyers talk about their desire to buy a Volvo because of its unmatched safety record.  Let’s forget, for a moment, that the safety record in question is now a few decades old and not applicable to the current models.  In education, we sell our superiority based on an outdated model and outdated comparisons, believing that tinkering around the edges today will make us stronger, and that no one can match what we really have to offer, because they couldn’t three decades ago.
Exams like NAEP, TIMSS, and PISA obviously tell us otherwise.  The growing national push for STEM (science-technology-engineering-math) tells us otherwise too.  But how do we really learn from our educational past, in a way that lets us strengthen our educational future?
On Monday, PBS will debut its “Where We Stand: America’s Schools in the 21st Century” program.  Hosted by The NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff, this program was developed to provide “an historic assessment of U.S. Schools in where we stand.”  Premiering at 10 p.m. on Monday, September 15, the program will tell the stories of a number of individuals and communities affected by the current state of public education, focusing on issues such as teaching foreign languages (like Mandarin classes in Ohio), addressing high-poverty, low-performance issues, and using STEM education programs to lift all boats and empower all students.
The program will address the issues in urban, suburban, and rural schools, recognizing our successes and our challenges are not limited to a sliver of our demographic.  More importantly, producers promise a “frank” discusses of public education’s strengths and weaknesses, an adjective that rarely finds its way into media coverage of education and education reform these days.  The show will focus on Ohio, as it is the microcosm of our nation, both politically and educationally.  
Kudos to PBS for taking up such a challenge and producing such a piece (and it isn’t even a John Merrow piece!).  And kudos to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for funding this effort, lending its resources to educating and teaching us, in addition to empowering us to change the classrooms.  Hopefully, “Where We Stand” will provide some important lessons for the reformers, the status quoers, and all those in between to learn from and model as we move forward.
Every GPS out there requires you to enter you start point in order to track your path.  Maybe, just maybe, “Where We Stand” can provide those many educators and policymakers lost out there in the wilderness with a reliable start point on which to plot a new course. 

Is Reading First Dead or Not?

Eduflack IES, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR, Spellings

Not much more than a month ago, it seemed the entire education community had written Reading First off for dead.  Congress has zero-funded the law.  The U.S. Department of Education was doing little, if anything, to do something about it.  IES had released an interim study questioning the program’s effectiveness.  All seemed relatively lost.

Yes, there was a small chorus of sane voices out there, trying to save this important program.  Sol Stern led a charge.  USA Today strongly weighed in.  Fordham Foundation provided intellectual heft.  Even little ol’ Eduflack got in more than its cent and a half.
Yet most have been planning for RF’s funeral.  Facts are facts, and the facts for RF were just not looking good.  Despite the need for scientifically based reading, despite the impact it has had on student achievement over the past five years, the simple fact was that RF was being zeroed out.  Those schools looking to implement SBRR would need to do so on their own, finding the necessary resources to fund programs that work (without the help from the feds).
The start of the school year may have shifted a little bit of thinking, though.  Tomorrow, EdSec Margaret Spellings will be in Des Moines, Iowa for a day o’ Reading First.  She’ll be touring RF classrooms at George Washington Carver Community School, and then will participate in a roundtable discussion with the superintendent and RF teachers.
More important, though, was the report issued late last month by the Reading First Federal Advisory Committee.  This advisory committee — led by Katherine Mitchell, the former Assistant State Superintendent in Alabama — issued its report as a direct response to the RF interim study released earlier this year by IES.  In their report, the Advisory Committee points to the interim study’s fundamental flaws (most of them methodological, which should be a surprise coming from IES).  More importantly, the committee states that the data found in the IES study is insufficient to make the claim that RF is ineffective.  The advisory committee’s ultimate conclusion — the Congress and ED should not make any long-term decisions on RF until better, more comprehensive data is collected.  They aren’t saying the IES study is wrong, they are just saying the data is insufficient to make any meaningful conclusions.
Of course, this study has gotten little (just about NO) attention from the media.  IES’s interim study was a dagger into RF’s heart, offering the media an entertaining Shakespearean education reform tragedy.  It made from great news, as IES (the office created, in many eyes, to build up SBRR and RF) was ultimately inflicting the wound.  It fell to alternate media, such as the blogosphere, to identify the flaws in the interim study.  It will likely fall to them once more.
So what comes next?  Despite the wishes of the chattering class, RF is likely to get level-funded for one more year.  As Congress fails to pass a new Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill before the end of the month, Congress will simply move into CR mode, meaning that the new budget will simply be a carbon copy of the old budget. So RF programs will collect another year of federal funding, some $350 million or so.  One more year of life.  One more year of opportunity.
Why is this important?  It gives RF (and more importantly, SBRR) supporters a final year to ensure that the legacy of RF is not abandoned when the federal implementation funding dries up.  In a year when the White House, ED, and a number of state departments of education will change hands, those who have benefited from RF’s beacon will need to figure some things out.  How do we keep what works in the classroom?  How do we ensure our schools continue to prioritize scientifically based reading research?  How do we distinguish between good and bad research?  How do we empower teachers with research-based instruction?  How do we get all kids reading?
A lot of questions, yes.  But a lot of questions with clear answers.  We may need a change of vocabulary, but the core principles on which RF was built remain more important than ever.

Campaigning on Education

Eduflack John McCain, national standards, Obama, STEM, Teacher Education

We are just about at the end of our political conventions, so how has education fared?  At last week’s Democratic convention, we had little mention of K-12 education, with the majority of it coming during Barack Obama’s acceptance speech, and more still coming from former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and current Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.  

So far, the GOP convention has been about the same.  Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee spoke of education last evening.  VP nominee and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made specific mention of special education (and more importantly, made a play for the sped community, perhaps the best-organized grassroots community in the nation).  But on the whole, despite all of the money and attention heaped on the issue by Ed in ’08 and others, public education was barely an also ran in this lead-up to the general election.

Over the past two weeks, Eduwonk (www.eduwonk.com) had done a good job of bringing us education commentary from campaign advisors.  Last week, we heard from the Republicans (including former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift, who, in the name of full disclosure, Eduflack helped defeat in a congressional race in 1996).  Swift and company offered some terrific insights into the education whispers being directed into John McCain’s ear, providing us more information in a week than the campaign had provided over the past year.
And this week, we are getting similar insight from Obama advisors Mike Johnston and John Schnur, who have given us both a 10-point plan and a real call to action (at least a call to action for policy wonks).
Yesterday, Greg Toppo reported in USA Today on the Democratic Party platform and how its education planks differ from years past and are seen as crossing the teachers’ unions.  Why?  Because the Party is supporting the idea of merit pay, one of the few education issues put forward by Obama during the primary campaign.
It all has Eduflack thinking.  Why is the issue of accountability seen as a Republican idea?  Don’t Democrats believe in measuring student achievement and knowing how our schools and kids are performing?  Why is the issue of supporting teachers seen as a Democratic idea?  Don’t Republicans care about making sure our teachers are well-trained, well-supported, and well-respected?  
We can go down the list.  School choice.  Charters.  Special education.  STEM.  High school reforms.  Principal preparation.  Alternative certification.  All are now seen as political issues, embraced by one side or condemned by the other.  It is no wonder that true, meaningful education reform is so difficult to come by these days.
I don’t mean to be Pollyanna-ish about this.  I get the ideology behind many of the policy issues.  I understand that it wasn’t so long ago that the national Republican Party was calling for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education.  I know the teachers unions have been myopic in their view of political candidates to support and limited as to their ability to embrace change.  But I also know we should demand more from our education community.
Earlier this year, I made recommendations on how Senators Obama and McCain can and should be talking about K-12 education during this campaign.  But I know that other than a possible question or two during the domestic policy debate, education will unlikely be a subject of presidential discussion.  But I would urge both campaigns to consider a few points, both as they message their campaign and as they prepare for their possible administration:
* Education is not an island unto itself.  A strong educational system leads to a strong economy.  It offers better jobs and better opportunities.  It improves the health and welfare of the community.  It is truly a tide that lifts all boats.  Education is the common denominator that links all of our domestic policy needs.
* We must teach to the 21st century.  These past two weeks, we’ve heard a lot about innovation and alternative energies.  If we are serious about this, we need to be serious about STEM education.  Reducing independence on foreign oil comes, in large part, from U.S. citizens with the skills and abilities to think, explore, and discover differently.  STEM is at the root of all of that, as well as countless other issues that will make us stronger as a nation.
* Education is about people.  We can develop the best curriculum or write an unmatched text, but if we don’t have a qualified, enthusiastic, and successful educators at the helm of the classroom and the school, we won’t see the results.  We need to invest in good teaching and good school leadership.  It starts in teacher training programs, and it continues through professional development for decades.
* Data is king.  We can’t improve if we don’t know where we stand today.  We identify best practices by seeing where our teachers and students are succeeding.  Likewise, we learn where we need to deploy resources and improve offerings based on the information.  School improvement requires high-quality, comparable data at the state, district, school, and student level.
* We need national standards.  We are not a union of independent states with different needs and different expectations.  There should be one national standard, a standard that brings us together and ensures that all students are receiving the high-quality education they deserve (and have been promised).  We can look to the governors to help us define what those standards should be, but a fourth grade education or a high school diploma should mean the same thing, regardless of state, social standing, or political party.
Education may not be THE defining issue of this campaign, but as we are discussing the middle class and small towns and the economy and the future, the one common thread is education.  Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, we all should agree that every child should have a high-quality education and every child should have the opportunity to succeed.  I know the campaign advisors agree with this, now we just have to get the nominees to say it out loud and in public.

“Glad” NCLB Wasn’t Reauthorized?

Eduflack AYP, HQT, national standards, NCLB, Spellings

Over the past year, we’ve heard from a lot of people that were thrilled that No Child Left Behind hadn’t been reauthorized.  Folks who felt it was an unfunded mandate.  Those who felt it overemphasized high-stakes testing. Those who feared it federalized education, removing the local control we’ve long depended on.  And those who questioned particular legislative components, whether it be special ed provisions, lack of attention on rural schools, highly qualified teacher language, over-emphasis on scientifically based research, etc.  Take your pick.  NCLB opponents have had a virtual Chinese menu of reasons to be glad that reauthorization efforts have stalled over the last two years.

But it was surprising to hear that EdSec Margaret Spellings shared in the joy of a stalled NCLB.  In remarks reported in Education Week’s Campaign K-12 blog, Spellings said she was “glad” the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was not reauthorized last year, due in large part to her view of the Miller/McKeon draft that was put forward early in the process.  Even more interesting, she believes the delay in reauthorization has allowed NCLB supporters to rally the troops and strengthen our resolve to build a law around “accountability.”
To a degree, Eduflack can understand where Spellings is coming from.  Congressman Miller was advocating some real changes to the law, including giving states and localities the flexibility of pursuing their own assessments.  Miller and McKeon did not share the view that NCLB was 99.99% good.  In reflecting on their goals when passing the law in the first place in 2002, the Democrat and Republican came together on a trial draft designed to strengthen the law and improve those areas where implementation has clearly fallen short.
I can also appreciate the need to take the time to do it right, ensuring a reauthorization effort is focused on the right issues — such as accountability.  But can we forget that the sand is quickly leaving the hourglass?  In March of 2007, one may have been “glad” that reauthorization didn’t move forward.  But this is now September 2008.  Those 18 months mean one thing and one thing only — NCLB has met its end.  We have been rallying the troops around accountability issues, but we’re about to disband the battalions.
Regardless of who wins the White House and who holds what majorities in the Congress, NCLB will soon cease to exist.  New decisionmakers will reauthorize ESEA their way.  Hopefully, accountability will remain a core tenet.  Maybe national standards will be moved front and center, as it should.  And if the presidential conventions are any indication, issues like teacher performance pay, school choice, and the achievement gap are likely to play prominent roles as well, as they deserve.  But NCLB is over.
Sure, NCLB may face the same fate as the Higher Education Act — a protracted reauthorization effort that takes five or more years to resolve.  The law may simply be level-funded year-on-year as the Congress tends to other priorities.  But change is coming, whether it be in 2009, 2010, or even further into the future.
For years, Eduflack has talked about how NCLB was one of those legacy pieces for this Administration.  As the final grains of sand fall, it is clear that that legacy is going to be one, first and foremost, of missed opportunities.  The goals and intentions of NCLB remain strong, and should remain the guiding principles we follow, both today and into the future.  But we’re lacking on the action.  We let threats and ultimatums win out over improvements and innovation.  And that’s a cryin’ shame.

How Do Grad Rates Rate?

Eduflack AYP, High School, national standards, NGA

It is the start of a new school year, thus the perfect time to start talking about graduation.  Recently, the media has run two interesting stories on high school graduation rates.  Last week, Michigan announced a 75% graduation rate, a number that dropped 10% from the previous year.  The cause?  Michigan is using a new graduation rate formula, a calculation that — while a little harsher — is far more accurate in determining graduation rates.

This week, Florida announced it may change the way it calculates the grad rate, eliminating a formula that included students who passed the GED and state assessments as high school “graduates.”  The expected result, like Michigan, Florida may soon see a significant drop in the high school graduation rate overnight.
These are but two examples of the challenges facing states in high school improvement efforts.  Take a look at the longitudinal data on high school graduation, and the numbers are quite unsettling.  States like Michigan and Florida tell you one thing, while Education Week and its Graduation Counts effort tell a completely different story (and it is usually a far-scarier one).  Talk to an urban superintendent about his graduation numbers, and you’ll hear rates in the 70 or 80 percents.  Ask Jay Greene and the Manhattan Institute the same question about the same districts, and you will often get a number that is 30 to 40 percent less than the superintendent is offering.
Why the great variance?  How can intelligent people look at the same schools, the same students, and the same data, yet come up with results that hold no resemblance to one another?
Florida is the perfect example of that.  When we talk grad rates, we expect it to measure the percentage of kids who started ninth grade and then finished 12th grade four years later (or in some cases, five years later).  We don’t expect students who drop out to pursue GEDs to be included in the grad pool.  After all, those students did not graduate from high school.  They pursued an alternative education path, but they did not graduate.
We talk a lot about AYP and how to compare schools, districts, and states when it comes to academic achievement.  We question whether student reading proficiency in Mississippi is equal to student reading proficiency in Massachusetts.  So why is it so hard for us to wrap our hands around a singular, clear high school graduation rate?
Years ago, the National Governors Association got all 50 states to buy into a common graduation formula.  Take a look at how many kids start ninth grade.  Factor out the school transfers and similar considerations.  Then look at how many of those kids graduated four years later.  That’s the grad rate — how many students completed high school four years after beginning it.
Several states have adopted this formula (including Michigan, thus the change in its most recent numbers).  But many more still have yet to apply the common formula to their state’s data.  Some are holding off because they are fearful of announcing a significant drop in grad rate overnight.  Others are working on building the data collection systems they need to do the work effectively.  And still others are just trying to sort it all out, trying to fit this priority in with a growing list of state education needs.
No matter the reason, the time has come for all states to embrace a common longitudinal graduation rate.  There is simply too much at stake not to.  In virtually every state in the union, we talk about the need to prepare our students for the opportunities of the 21st century.  We talk about new skills and new jobs.  About working smarter.  We discuss that a high school diploma is no longer a sufficient terminal degree, and that postsecondary education is a necessary step for all.
Can we really get more kids into postsecondary education if we don’t know who is actually finishing high school?  How do we boost graduation rates if we don’t have an accurate baseline to build on?  How do we improve the high school experience if we don’t have good data on who finishes, who doesn’t, and why?
Michigan and Florida’s announcements are indications we are heading in the right direction.  The first step might be painful.  No one wants to see their grad rates significantly decline.  But it is the right thing to do.  And it is a necessary step if we are to improve our nation’s high schools, increasing the number of kids who graduate from high school and go on to college.

Fins to the Left, Teachers to the Right

Eduflack NCLB, PR

Over the weekend, Eduflack and his far better half ventured out to the Jimmy Buffett concert.  It was indeed time for the “Labor Day weekend show.”  The perfect opportunity to check out from the real world for a few hours, putting concerns about education reform out of mind for a short period of time and instead focusing on great music and modern-day pirates.

Imagine my surprise, then, that amid the shark fins, Parrotheads, and rivers of margaritas, I stumble across a sign welcoming me “to the education revolution,” a promotional booth for EPIC, or Educators for Progressive Instructional Change.  Sure, it stood out from among the grass skirts, leis, and tequila, but it nonetheless caught my eye (and what exactly does that say about me?).
EPIC is a non-profit “focused on empowering teachers to impact the process of education reform.”  Its goal seems simple enough, to provide teachers the information and professional development so that they can get involved in the policy process.  The mission is similar to many others “to create education reform that will empower teachers.  Our efforts aim to connect, inspire, and motivate teachers to become the focus of education reform.  The primary goal is to unite teachers as an indomitable force for education reform.”
How?  At first blush, much of the same old, same old.  A brochure that looks like so many that have come before it.  LiveStrong style bracelets that have long lost their power.  And promotion of a march on DC later this fall, as a show of support by and for area teachers.
Talking with EPIC’s founder and president, Myra Sawyers, Eduflack learned that EPIC (www.epicreform.org) is focusing on the DC area first, with plans to roll out activities in other cities (Charlotte, NC was mentioned) down the road.  Sawyers is quick to note that the group is not a PAC, but instead is a non-profit organization with no political mandate.
This mission, indeed, is a noble one, one that is desperately needed in 21st century public education.  We do need to treat good teachers with more professionalism and respect.  Teachers should be involved in the policy process, at the local, state, and federal levels.  And teachers must be empowered to be self-advocates, voices in the schools and the community that not only trigger reform, but bring about meaningful improvement.
Many things must be done, though, to move from well-intentioned to impactful. There are scores of organizations like EPIC that are created each and every year.  And each and every year, even more organizations like it fail.  They fail for many of the same reasons, and many of them focus on communications.
So how does EPIC learn those lessons and continue to build a strong non-profit organization dedicated to teacher empowerment?  By following five simple steps:
* Have a plan — A NFP is no different than a corporation or a political campaign.  The first step to success is having a clear business plan you can follow.  What are your goals? Who are you trying to reach?  How will you measure success?  What resources (human and financial) are available to you?  In the words of baseball philosopher Yogi Berra, if you don’t know where you are going, you are never going to get there.  The plan helps you see where you are going.
* Know your audience — We all want to be everything to everyone.  But success requires clear identification of your target audience.  More importantly, it means understanding the stakeholders who can make the most difference in the shortest period of time.  Who’s in a position to call for change?  Who can implement change?  Who has the resources to bring about change?
* Have a clear ask — Too many start-up not-for-profits see themselves as information-sharing organizations only.  They believe that if they get the information out, their work is done.  Success comes when you drive your audience to take a specific action.  And that only comes from a clear ask.  If EPIC is targeting teachers, what exactly do they want them to do?  Speak at school boards?  Visit state legislatures?  Write letters to the editor?  Figure out what actions are needed to bring change, then ask for those actions (and those actions only).
* Don’t go alone — It is hard to have lasting impact if you are a singular voice trying to break through the white noise.  Education reform success often comes through relationships, partnerships, and advocates. Find those groups and individuals that share a common vision and common goals.  Use their communications channels.  Build on their membership and recognition.  Establish a network of champions and advocates that can carry your message well beyond your own resources.
* Evaluate, adjust, repeat — Yes, it is essential to set clear, measurable goals from the beginning.  A good reform organization knows to constantly evaluate its efforts, establishing ongoing benchmarks of effectiveness.  A truly successful reform group knows to take that evaluation and use it to adjust its communications and advocacy efforts, constantly improving and strengthening its activities.  Such an ongoing feedback loop only strengthens the organization and ensures the maximization of resources.
And one final piece of advice for Ms. Sawyers and the education reformers like her. PACs aren’t the only groups that advocate.  Under the law, not-for-profits and 501(c)(3)s can be effective policy advocates at all levels of government.  Yes, there is a fine line between lobbying and advocacy.  But for groups like EPIC to be successful, they must become successful policy advocates.  Simply spotlighting the importance of teachers is no longer good enough.  Those organizations that leave a lasting impact are ones that guide us to improvement.  They are groups that make specific policy recommendations to improve the power of the teaching profession.  And then they leave it up to the legislators to codify and fund it.

“An Army of Teachers”

Eduflack Gates Foundation, HQT, NEA, Obama

It should be no surprise that there was little real discussion of K-12 education at this week’s Democratic convention.  As we’re seeing in polls, education simply isn’t an issue on which people cast their national vote.  It isn’t a red-meat topic to rally the troops and build true excitement.  Despite all of the best attempts from groups like Ed in 08, education just didn’t register this week, and isn’t expected to register next week.

Sure, there were a few veiled references to No Child Left Behind and how it has saddled our schools.  Many speakers talked about the need for more student loans.  But other than a few sentences in former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner’s speech and in current Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick’s remarks, education was an also-ran issue.
But last night, Barack Obama upped the ante.  Yes, his spoke globally on a range of issues, focusing mainly on the economy and on foreign policy.  Education, though, also popped up in his speech.  The most interesting line, perhaps, was his notion that, as president, he would recruit a “new army of teachers” for our schools.
We all have heard the stories about how more than half of all teachers will be retiring over the next five years.  We know that there is a teacher “shortage” out there, particularly in subjects such as math and science.  And we’ve seen the stories about school districts recruiting for new teachers outside of their state and even outside of the United States.  But it is a bold statement to say that the federal government is soon going to get into the business of identifying and recruiting a new “army of teachers.”
At a Jobs for the Future conference last fall, the Gates Foundation’s education director, Vicki Phillips, spoke of the Foundation’s need to get into the human capital business.  Few noticed the line, but it left a lasting impact on Eduflack.  Imagine the impact on teacher recruitment if the Gates Foundation put its money and its willpower behind the teacher recruitment, bringing individuals into the fold who can lead the new classrooms of the 21st century.  It was an interesting idea, an idea that hasn’t been fleshed out since Phillips tossed it into the pool.
Getting the federal government — and, thus, the U.S. Department of Education — makes it just a little more interesting.  Imagine an assistant secretary for teacher recruitment, leading an office that is looking at new incentives and alternative certifications and performance pay and teachers at charter schools.  I know I am jumping to conclusions here, but it is an interesting thought that the feds could soon be in the teacher recruitment business.
Yes, the chance if far greater that this is a line that will soon be forgotten and never adopted into policy.  In an Obama Administration, even if it moved forward, it could simply be an initiative run by the National Education Association, looking so much like efforts that have come before it.  
Or it could just be a bold way to truly improve education, putting everything on the table and making clear that the teacher in front of the classroom is the most important component to student achievement.  It could redefine how we think of a qualified, effective teacher.  And it could re-energize a new generation to become classroom teachers.

The Very Real Costs of Free Public Education

Eduflack Students

As a child, Eduflack loved this time of year.  The start of a new school year meant new school supplies.  Just as I do today, back then I loved a good stationery store.  And as I do today, I was always looking for the unique product.  The Trapper Keeper design unlike the others.  The unique pens in inks other than blue and black.  Notebooks as narrowly ruled as possible to hold my small chicken scratch and not have it get lost on the page.  (And, interestingly, I never bought pencils, as I push down too hard when I write, thus unable to keep the point on any wood or mechanical pencil.  Even did my algebra and trig and calculus in pen.)

Each year, I would watch as my mother bought her school supplies as well.  My mom was (and is) a dedicated high school English teacher.  She’d buy videos (and now DVDs).  She order supplemental books and student incentives.  She’d have pens and pencils for those students without.  And she’d buy all of the communal products needed in her classroom.  It always seemed unfair to me, that she, instead of the school, had to buy all of the supplies for her classroom.  But that was the way it was, and she just waited for those sales when teachers got an extra 10% off.
Last week, the D.C. Examiner ran several stories on the “costs” of attending public schools.  Parents bemoaned the activity fees and snack fees and similar costs associated with going to school.  The tales of laundry lists of needed supplies seemed to be a bit of an overstatement.
Then I checked out the list for the kids of a close family friend.  This blue-collar family was preparing their first for the start of the new school year out in Loudoun County, Virginia.  Eduflack took a peek at the shopping list, and was shocked by both the length and the specificity involved.  
Three composition notebooks of three different colors (black, red, and blue), none with perforated or spiral pages.  One blue and one red plastic pocket folder.  One school box no larger than 5″ by 8″.  One box of crayons, 24 count only.  One pair of scissors with a 5″ sharp tip.
But that wasn’t all.  Those were for the student’s personal stash.  Then we moved into the student’s communal responsibilities.  Each student is required to provide the class 24 glue sticks of .21 ounces each, a 175-count box of tissues, 36 sharpened #2 pencils, and a box of 80 baby wipes.  Each girl in the class also had to bring a box of resealable plastic bags, quart size, and each boy had to bring a box of the same, in gallon size.
Imagine it.  In a class of 25, students are providing 600 communal glue sticks and nearly 900 sharpened pencils.  This cache would then supplement the students’ individual needs.  What teacher has the storage space?
It took shopping trips to three different stores, and several hundred dollars, to collect all of the items on the list.  And then there was the electric pencil sharpener needed to sharpen the 36 pencils (no surprise, no one sells sharpened pencils).  All, in large part, to get a six-year-old ready for school. 
Makes you want to ask where exactly all the per-pupil expenditures and rising property tax bills are going.

Too Good?

Eduflack AYP, DCPS, national standards, Students

In New Haven, CT, a nine-year-old boy was just told he couldn’t play Little League baseball.  His offense?  League officials have determined that the boy is just too good.  His team is 8-0.  A pitcher, the boy throws a 40-mile-per-hour fastball (which for those unfamiliar with the game is just filthy good).  It means most opposing players are unable to hit his pitches.  He broke no rules; he did nothing wrong.  In fact, he did it all right, performing as all of us former Little Leaguers wish we could.  The result?  The nine-year-old has been banished from the league, and his fellow teammates have been offered slots on the remaining teams in the league.

What does all this have to do with education reform, you may ask?  Actually, a great deal.  Let’s first look at the message we are sending children.  After a decade of soccer games where do don’t keep score, trophies for all kids who participate, and the elimination of games like dodgeball because they make some kids feel bad about themselves, we are now ostracizing students for excelling.  We are telling them that the goal is mediocrity.  Better to remain in the pack rather than strive to be the leader.
It is hard enough to be a student in today’s world.  If we believe media reports, peer pressure, bullying, and the like are far worse today than they were when Eduflack was a kid.  We hear tales of students who downplay their intellect and are ashamed of their achievement, fearful of the repercussions on the playground or in the neighborhood.  And now they have to worry about attacks and dismissal from the adults that were trusted to teach them and further develop their skills?  League officials should celebrate this kid for being an all-star and achieving at levels of kids two, three, or four years older than the one in question.
It is no wonder we have such a difficult time encouraging, supporting, and demanding improved student achievement.  We don’t focus on those schools that regularly make AYP.  Instead, we come up with excuses as to why so many schools are failing to excel.  Instead of offering incentives to ensure that the very best teachers are in DC classrooms, we accuse the DCPS chancellor or racism, sexism, ageism, and any other ism we can think of.  Instead of ensuring all U.S. schools are world class, and can compete with our international colleagues, we turn a blind eye to how our lax U.S. national standards measure up to other industrialized nations.  Instead of striving to continue to offer the best public education available in the free world and a system of meritocracy, we are content with status quo and a life of mediocrity.
Sure, this is a lot to deduce from a Little League pitcher.  But look at the past two weeks.  We celebrated U.S. performances in the Olympic Games, cheering the fact the United States won more medals than any other nation.  But how much attention did educators pay to the educational olympics offered by the Fordham Foundation, which show our standing slipping in critical academic areas?
We should be asking ourselves how we get out kids to throw lights-out when it comes to algebra II or chemistry, Spanish or world history.  We should be encouraging STEM education in the elementary grades and advanced-level courses at the start of high school.  We should be asking how we can get every kid excelling academically — exceeding expectations and grade-level requirements.    

Mini Me, Version DCPS

Eduflack AYP, Bloomberg, Chancellor Klein, DCPS, Fenty, Michelle Rhee

Educators are very big on the concept of modeling.  We find what is effective in a similar situation (with a school, a class, or a student just like mine) and put it into practice in our own situation.  Makes sense — if it is works for someone else, it just may work for me.

But sometimes we can take modeling a little too far, giving the impression we are just mimicking or copying those that others like.  Case in point, DC Public Schools.  For a school district that is supposedly all about innovation and improvement, they seem to be an awful lot like the new student trying to dress, talk, and act like the “cool kid” on the playground.
We saw it last year when DC Mayor Fenty decided he would channel NYC Mayor Bloomberg, appointing a schools chancellor (instead of a superintendent) and choosing a non-traditional choice (former Justice Department official Joel Klein in NYC and New Teacher Project founder Michelle Rhee in DC).  Since, we’ve seen it in Rhee’s dealings issues such as school closings and dealings with the unions and even parental engagement.
Yesterday, though, Rhee officially became Klein’s mini-me.  She announced a new pilot project to “pay” middle school students for showing up for school and doing their work.  If successful, Rhee intends to take the pilot project across all middle schools in DC, offering up crisp Benjamins for students who do their jobs as students.
Let’s forget that there are still unanswered questions about the effectiveness of NYC’s own pilot effort.  What message does it send when we offer middle school students pay for play?
Supporters of such efforts would argue it is simply an equity issue.  Upper-class families have been paying their kids for good grades for years, the line goes, why can’t we give at-risk students the financial incentive to come to class, pay attention, and do their homework.  After all, fair is fair.
Unfortunately, such thinking completely misses the larger picture.  Pay for play is necessary when there is no larger reason for the action.  In recent years, though, we’ve been telling students and their families that a good education is necessary for a good job.  We need more rigorous classes.  We need kids with high school diplomas and postsecondary educations.  We need students with the academic and social skills to succeed.
Step one to getting there is actually showing up for school.  Step two is paying attention.  Step three is doing the work.  Step four is measuring proficiency.  Repeat.  
The reward should be the proficiency and the skill acquisition.  A crisp $100 bill shouldn’t be the incentive for student performance.  If it is, getting middle school students to show up is the least of our problems.
If DCPS wants to borrow from the NYC DOE playbook, it should be focusing on increasing student achievement and closing the achievement gap.  Gimmicks such as pay to play may look good in the local papers, but they simply aren’t going to solve the larger issues facing DCPS and other urban districts.